Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Why doesn't anyone talk about Parker v. District of Columbia?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358

    Why doesn't anyone talk about Parker v. District of Columbia?

    Parker v. District of Columbia?

    http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0557.htm

    This case predates Heller by over a full year, and ruled in favor of Shelly Parker, stating that the Districts handgun ban was unconstitutional, and this was determined 2-1 in a federal court. The District appealed, but the appeals court dismissed their appeal, stating that the ruling was sound.

    She was also a part of the Heller case, as one of the co-litigants.

    Why doesn't anyone talk about "Parker"? This was a case lead by an African-American woman, who was also a professional, a well-respected member fo the community, and it ruled essentially the SAME as Heller, and was in April of 2007!

    http://kennblanchard.com/?p=176

    The 2A movement should be ALL over this one. Shelly Parker should be held up on a pedestal for all to see, as an example of the racist discrimination of the DC government, and their disdain for the Federal Courts. Heller was a rich white guy--it's not surprising his case doesn't get much sympathy from the population and government in DC. But Ms. Parker is a professional African America woman.

    If it's fair for the Bradys to "play the race card", why isn't it OK for OUR side to do the same, ESPECIALY when the discrimination is so blatant as in the Parker case? The federal courts struck down the DC ban with her case in 2007, and they ignored it. The Federal Courts struck down the DC ban AGAIN with Heller in 2008, and DC made their "permitting" protocols so byzantine that they might as well have ignored the Federal ruling.

    What happened to Shelly Parker, and why isn't her case being paraded through the streets as an example of the racist gun-control policies of Washington DC?
    Last edited by Dreamer; 08-09-2010 at 12:05 AM.
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    I vaguely recall that it was decided somewhere along the line that she and others did not have standing to sue. I could be wrong. You might research the history of the case in a little more depth.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    According to "OLR Research Report", the NRA/ILA and Clayton Cramer the courts ruled in favor of Parker. DC appealed, but the courts refused to hear the appeal...

    http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0557.htm

    In Parker v. District of Columbia, a three-judge panel of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia voted two-to-one to strike down parts of the District's gun control law as unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds. The provisions at issue (1) ban handgun ownership, with exceptions for active and retired law enforcement officials and people who registered their handguns before 1976; (2) prohibit carrying handguns anywhere, including in one's home, without a license; and (3) require all lawfully owned firearms, including long guns, to be stored locked, unloaded, or disassembled.
    Also see the following articles:

    http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactShe...=216&issue=010




    http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/overview.html

    On March 9, 2007, the appellate court reversed the lower court's opinion, and struck down all three laws challenged by the plaintiffs as violations of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The city and its new Mayor, Adrian Fenty, have asked the Supreme Court to hear the case. We look forward to vindicating the Second Amendment rights of all Americans before the Supreme Court should it decide to hear the case.

    http://www.claytoncramer.com/popular/ParkerVDC.htm

    The Court of Appeals, however, ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms--and ruled that at least some parts of the DC gun control law are unconstitutional.[1] The decision acknowledges that the federal courts have given a variety of contradictory statements about the Second Amendment, but points to the historical evidence that it protects an individual right to own firearms—and would seem to force the Supreme Court to resolve the differences between different circuits of the Court of Appeals.
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    SNIP According to "OLR Research Report",...
    Yes, but none of that says anything about whether her standing to sue was later challenged.

    You asked why nobody is talking about this great petitioner. Trust me. A saavy fella like Gura would not have shifted such a great petitioner from the lead party in the case if there was not a very, very good reason.

    As I mentioned, I have this vague recollection that some of the petitioners were ruled to not have standing, maybe including her. In your shoes, I might hunt around a while yet to see if I could find out why the case changed names from Parker to Heller. Then, if I couldn't find it, and got no satisfactory answer here, I would just e-mail Alan Gura and ask him. But, I would only ask him as a last resort. Clayton Cramer might know, also. I might ask him as a next-to-last resort to asking Gura. (Just don't mention OC to Cramer. He disapproves. Wrote an uncomplimentary blog post or column on it a while back.)

  5. #5
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Heller was a security guard, not a "rich white man." McDonald is black. Both cases were about common people wanting their rights no longer trampled on. I believe elements of Parker were incorporated in Heller, but may be wrong. Certiorari was granted in Heller, not Parker. That was why Heller went forward. The SC never was appealed to in Parker and Certiorari was not applied by them to take the case.
    Last edited by Gunslinger; 08-09-2010 at 01:15 PM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunslinger View Post
    Heller was a security guard, not a "rich white man." McDonald is black. Both cases were about common people wanting their rights no longer trampled on. I believe elements of Parker were incorporated in Heller, but may be wrong. Certiorari was granted in Heller, not Parker. That was why Heller went forward. The SC never was appealed to in Parker and Certiorari was not applied by them to take the case.
    Which means that in DC the Parker precident is still alive, unless later cases by the circuit or SCOTUS disturb it.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distric...mbia_v._Heller

    According to this the case you are discussing had six plantiffs including Dick Heller and Shelly Parker.

    The reason that Heller went forward:

    The court's opinion first addressed whether appellants have standing to sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in section II (slip op. at 5–12). The court concluded that of the six plaintiffs, only Heller — who applied for a handgun permit but was denied — had standing.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by PT111 View Post
    SNIP According to this the case you are discussing had six plantiffs including Dick Heller and Shelly Parker.

    The reason that Heller went forward:
    Ahhh. Thank you, PT111. I wasn't sure anymore.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    Which means that in DC the Parker precident is still alive, unless later cases by the circuit or SCOTUS disturb it.
    That's correct. Not going to the SC means the decision stands as written. Heller & McDonald may enhance it, but the decision is now case law.

  10. #10
    Regular Member VAopencarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    The 'Dena, Mаяуlaпd
    Posts
    2,147
    Heller and Parker are the same case. The Parker v DC case went forward to SCOTUS under the name of Heller as all other plaintiffs were determined to not have standing.
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

  11. #11
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    My point is that it is interesting that of the six plaintiffs in Heller, the ONLY one who had "standing" was a white guy with a badge who had never been a victim of a crime.

    Two other plaintiffs HAD been victims, and one had actually defended himself with a handgun while living in another state. Of the five that were judged to "not have standing" One was Black, one was gay, three were women. And none had badges...

    But the only one who had "standing" according to the courts was a white guy with a badge...

    I think we can all do the math on this one...

    What Heller ultimately states is that if you live in DC and have a badge, you get to act under a different set of laws than "regular citizens".

    Thank god for Otis McDonald. At least in THAT case, the plaintiff was a "regular citizen"...
    Last edited by Dreamer; 08-12-2010 at 11:43 AM.
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247
    The court's opinion first addressed whether appellants have standing to sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in section II (slip op. at 5–12). The court concluded that of the six plaintiffs, only Heller — who applied for a handgun permit but was denied — had standing.

    I think this was discussed in detail a good while back but Heller was the only one who had actually applied and had been refused permission.

    Shelly Parker – a software designer and former nurse who had been active in trying to rid her neighborhood of drugs. Parker is a single woman whose life had been threatened on numerous occasions by drug dealers who have sometimes tried to break into her house.[8][9]
    Tom G. Palmer – a colleague of Robert A. Levy at the Cato Institute and the only plaintiff that Levy knew before the case began.[7] Palmer, who is gay, defended himself with a 9mm handgun in 1982. While walking with a friend in San Jose, California, he was accosted by a gang of about 20 young men who used profane language regarding his sexual orientation and threatened his life. When he produced his gun, the men fled. Palmer believes that the handgun saved his life.[10][11]
    Gillian St. Lawrence – a mortgage broker who lives in the Georgetown section of D.C. and who owns several legally registered long guns which she uses for recreation in nearby Chantilly, Virginia. It had taken St. Lawrence two years to complete the registration process. She wanted to be able to use these guns to defend herself in her home and to be able to register a handgun.[12][13]
    Tracey Ambeau (now Tracey Hanson) – an employee of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Originally from St. Gabriel, Louisiana, she lives in the Adams Morgan neighborhood of D.C. with her husband, Andrew Hanson, who is from Waterloo, Iowa. They live in a high-crime neighborhood near Union Station in D. C. She grew up around guns and wanted one to defend her home.[14][12]
    George Lyon – a communications lawyer who had previously contacted the National Rifle Association about filing a lawsuit to challenge the D.C. gun laws. Lyon held D.C. licenses for a shotgun and a rifle, but wanted to have a handgun in his home.[15]
    Dick Heller – a licensed special police officer for the District of Columbia. For his job, Heller carried a gun in federal office buildings, but was not allowed to have one in his home.[16] Heller had lived in southeast D.C. near the Kentucky Courts public housing complex since 1970 and had seen the neighborhood "transformed from a child-friendly welfare complex to a drug haven". Heller had also approached the National Rifle Association about a lawsuit to overturn the D.C. gun ban, but the NRA declined.[12]
    Although all six had valid reasons for having a handgun only Heller had actually been refused. Nothing to do with being black, white, gay or crooked.
    Last edited by PT111; 08-12-2010 at 12:39 PM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by PT111 View Post
    Although all six had valid reasons for having a handgun only Heller had actually been refused. Nothing to do with being black, white, gay or crooked.

    So let me get this straight. I'm just trying to figure out the Court's logic...

    Two people who had been attacked or robbed, and wanted to change the law so that they could legally defend themselves don't have standing...

    But a guy who applied (through a non-existent application process because private ownership of handguns was BANNED in DC at the time) for a non-existent DC permit (because private ownership of handguns was BANNED in DC at the time, and they DIDN'T issue permits to ordinary citizens), and had never been a victim of any sort of crime DID have standing?...

    OK, I get it now...

    Thanks for clearing that up...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •